80 replies to this topic

[Bernard]

I know that Oak Bay is small and parochial, but this one really takes the cake. It is utter insanity to our city that Oak Bay remains its own local government and navel gazes at rocks on a boulevard while our city has some major issues to address.

This is from Corey Burger's blog on Oak Bay

The much discussed rocks on the Tinto St. boulevard are again coming before the committee of the whole this Monday (PDF), after staff was asked to prepare a report into the following options for the area and council opted to defer to allow more time to consult residents. The three options mentioned in the report were:

1. Remove the rocks at a cost of $2,000
2. 30 degree angle parking with 8 stalls (costing $70,000 with ‘turf stone’ or $21,000 using curb and gutter and asphalt.
3. Parallel parking with 15 stalls (costing $65,000 using ‘turf stone’ or $27,000 using curb and gutter and asphalt)

The problem, ostensibly, is parking. The rocks were originally placed there to solve the problem of people parking on the grassy boulevard, something the Mayor raised at a September 2008 Council meeting. Fast forward to a June 2009 Committee of the Whole meeting (PDF) , where a resident approached council about said rocks, wondering why they had been placed there “without consultation with the residents”, in his words. His request triggered the creation of the report, which was given to council at a November 2009 meeting.

[Holden West]

"Preservation of green space?" Huh, some nature trail...

[phx]

I know that Oak Bay is small and parochial, but this one really takes the cake. It is utter insanity to our city that Oak Bay remains its own local government and navel gazes at rocks on a boulevard while our city has some major issues to address.

Well, that is the whole purpose of having separate municipalities: it provides people with alternatives to living in a city that is negligent and neglectful.

[gumgum]

^Are you referring to Oak Bay or Victoria when you speak of neglect and negligence?

[Bernard]

I find that fact the a municipal government is wasting any time on this issue insane

Rocks matter more to Oak Bay than homeless people? They spend time on this but spend no time on regional transportation issues.

Think about it, there are paid staff taking time to deal with this.

[phx]

What I find insane is anyone in Victoria criticizing another municipality. Get your own house in order first!

[VicHockeyFan]

Tinto Rock would be a great name for a glam-rock band. I'd say they sell out 3/4 of their North American tour, with two-night gigs in LA, Detroit and New York.


http://paxarcana.fil..._york_dolls.jpg

When were they placed? $2000 to remove? How about $3000 to sell them to the Hwy #17 Interchange constructors! BAM!

[gumgum]

^^OK. Let's start by amalgamation.
That way other municipalities can start paying for what is partially THEIR MESS. Not enough money for policing, homelessness, crime, I could go on. Instead they spend their money on stupid things like moving around rocks.
To say that Victoria's problems are Victoria's alone is silly.
To say that Victoria problems are mostly a result of neglect and negligence is laughable.

[Holden West]

Yes, it is interesting that a truckload of rocks has either a positive or negative value depending on what you want to do with them.

[phx]

^^ If you expect the other municipalities to pay, you can expect them to dictate the solution also.

One can only imagine the whining that would ensue...

[piltdownman]

I could be wrong, but isn't homeless supposed to be a Provincial problem? So really other than paying taxes, what does Oak Bay have to do with it? I understand that the Province is failing, and so the Cities are having to pick up the slack, but at the root it shouldn't be their problem.

And I would say a successful municipal government should be able to deal with both big and small issues. In fact I would say if they loose track of the small issues (like rocks) because of the big issues they are doing a terrible job.

[Baro]

I wish I was rich and could just declare my house it's own municipality, then I could scoff at the rest of the city and wave my hands in the air saying their social problems aren't my concern. What? Spend MY taxes on THEIR problem??

[aastra]

It's a good idea. Turn every neighbourhood into its own municipality. That way, most Victorians would be able to wash their hands of the city's larger responsibilities.

[Bernard]

I could be wrong, but isn't homeless supposed to be a Provincial problem? So really other than paying taxes, what does Oak Bay have to do with it? I understand that the Province is failing, and so the Cities are having to pick up the slack, but at the root it shouldn't be their problem.

And I would say a successful municipal government should be able to deal with both big and small issues. In fact I would say if they loose track of the small issues (like rocks) because of the big issues they are doing a terrible job.

One solution for the City of Victoria to deal with the homeless would be to have the police drive them all to Oak Bay and drop them off there.

I am sure that people would scream and shout if this were to happen, but it would solve the problem for the City of Victoria and be a cheaper solution. The City of Victoria could buy some buildings in Oak Bay and use them as a shelter.

The reality is that Oak Bay is not a real community that makes any rational senses. It is a collection of neighbourhoods in our city.

If anyone thinks Oak Bay makes sense, then the City of Victoria should split into five or six local governments.

Having a council in Oak Bay means that staff and council time is spent on inane minutiae. Does anyone think talking about some rocks along the edge of a quiet residential street is worth more than two minutes at a council meeting?

Nero and fiddles come to mind with respect to Oak Bay.

As a footnote, Oak Bay has close to the highest per capita residential CO2 emissions of any community in BC.

[Bingo]

I find that fact the a municipal government is wasting any time on this issue insane

Rocks matter more to Oak Bay than homeless people? They spend time on this but spend no time on regional transportation issues.

Think about it, there are paid staff taking time to deal with this.

As a resident of Oak Bay I can say that rocks do not matter more than the homeless. I have not seen a homeless or a panhandling problem in the municipality, and we do not need white noise to disperse the village seniors. You will not find ten layers of posters wrapped around every pole, or people camped in our parks.

Oak Bay Mayor and Council do a good job of running the municipality. In fact Mayor Causton does spend time working on regional issues as Chair of the Victoria Transit Commission, as a Director of the Capital Regional District and as a Director of the Victoria Harbour Authority.

When I hear the word amalgamation, I cringe to think of how that would change the municipality.

For those who think we are behind the times, you might be right. Come on over for a cup of tea sometime, you might choose to live here.

[Bernard]

As a resident of Oak Bay I can say that rocks do not matter more than the homeless. I have not seen a homeless or a panhandling problem in the municipality,

Since Oak Bay deals with homeless people well, Victoria should drive them all to Oak Bay and drop them off there. If the mayor and council seem to be able to house the homeless in Oak Bay, lets get them all to move there.

So people in the City of Victoria that live on one side of Foul Bay have to pay for the costs of downtown, but the people the other side get avoid that because of an artificial and arbitrary boundary?

The fact that Oak Bay is unwilling to spend money on homeless shelters but is willing to spend staff time on rocks says volumes about the priorities of the council - rocks do matter more than the homeless.

[phx]

The neglected infrastructure and mismanaged social problems in Victoria are largely consequences of decisions made by Victoria. The city needs to step up and deal with its issues.

[piltdownman]

At the risk of saying something very unpopular, I'm going to say it would be irresponsible for the Oak Bay council to build a shelter. Lets remember that their responsibility is to the property owners and business owners of Oak Bay. Putting a shelter in Oak Bay would bring people into the neighborhood that the people there simply don't want. Oak Bay doesn't have a homeless problem, bringing a shelter into Oak Bay would create one. Its nice to think that Oak Bay has a responsibility to help the homeless downtown, but they don't. Their responsibility is simply the problems and issues within their own boundaries.

This is why amalgamation will never happen. The suburbs really don't have much to gain. They loose all their power and the tax money ends up going into the downtown problems and paying for a new bridge.

On a side note, $2k to remove some rocks? If you can't lift them, and the city doesn't have the equipment, you can rent a mini excavator for $200/day.

[VicHockeyFan]

Hey, Saanich opened a sort-of shelter the other day. Of course, they cleverly hid it just on the edge of Victoria, so their residents don't notice that they have one.

[Bernard]

The answers from people really make realize that the answer is for the city to drive the homeless to the other municipalities and dump them there.

Victoria did not create the homeless, the people came from elsewhere to Victoria.

On the basis of how people from Oak Bay act, Victoria should not rebuild the rail over the Johnson Street Bridge. It is not benefit to the City.

Anyone that thinks it is fair for Oak Bay not to have to shoulder the costs of a region in which it helped to create the regional problems is a very, very selfish person.